| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2004 07:52:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence. What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to doubt that
evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred? To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise. If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
.
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
27 Jul 2004 08:22:34 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has
occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons
to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he
wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence.
What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to
doubt that
evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred? To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise. If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
*****. You're advocating absolute knowledge and proof. It does not
exist in man, law, fact or theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 08:53:03 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-IkDNc.73$%O5.8663@news.uswest.net...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has
occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons
to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he
wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence.
What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to
doubt that
evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred? To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise. If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
*****. You're advocating absolute knowledge and proof. It does not
exist in man, law, fact or theory.
Sheldon, David is on your side.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 01:02:50 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:okONc.698$Jp6.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-IkDNc.73$%O5.8663@news.uswest.net...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any
rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has
occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational
reasons
to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he
wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence.
What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one
to
doubt that
evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution
(or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred? To make the
determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to
which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can
give
rise. If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their
origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
*****. You're advocating absolute knowledge and proof. It does
not
exist in man, law, fact or theory.
Sheldon, David is on your side.
I didn't know you got to pick for me. Sorry. Next time have the coach
tell me first.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 09:54:01 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-IkDNc.73$%O5.8663@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has
occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons
to doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence. What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to doubt
that evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred? To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise. If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
*****. You're advocating absolute knowledge and proof. It does not
exist in man, law, fact or theory.
Life is the end product of spontaneous generation followed by
evolution. This has been so conclusively established by generations
of study and the resultant accumulation of literally *millions* of
concordant scientific facts that it has become self-evident and
requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions
and prejudices.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 08:52:28 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence. What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to doubt
that
evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred?
Evolution has been observed. "Spontaneous Generation" in the way Pasteur
refuted has not. Abiogenesis has not yet been observed, but may be some
day.
To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise.
So, it's rather silly of creationists to claim it can't happen.
If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Not only is "intelligent design" a miserable hypothesis, it's not testable,
and not scientific.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 09:45:23 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<VjONc.697$Jp6.407@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407271659.6b2da15@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<sCjNc.15603$f4.6095@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407261634.18eca8cd@posting.google.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<q%bNc.14852$f4.691@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"MurphyInOhio" <murphyinohio@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:murphy-20040726030511.04811.00001572@mb-m24.wmconnect.com...
Consider taking heed to your own advice. Do seek
professional help, Glenn.
You're a sick man.
Adam
Yes. Any man who holds doubts about the claims of
evolution...must be insane!
Especally one who does not back up his doubts with any rational
thought.
Care to offer any rational reasons to doubt evolution has occured?
And while you're at it, Murphy, care to offer any rational reasons to
doubt spontaneous generation has occured?
Perhaps Ford could do so as well. Pasteur for example when he wished to
oppose the concept of spontaneous generation provided evidence. What
evidence can either Ford, or Murphy offer that would cause one to doubt
that evolution has occured?
Is there any evidence that can justify the claim that evolution (or
spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred?
Evolution has been observed. "Spontaneous Generation" in the way Pasteur
refuted has not. Abiogenesis has not yet been observed, but may be some
day.
Yes, evolution has indeed been observed.
Whether or not spontaneous generation/ abiogenesis is ever observed or
not, it is a fact that it occurred one or more times very early on in
the earth's history. Come to think of it, spontaneous generation
_has_ been observed, and every IDiot would have to face the blatant
falsity of their IDiocy if they would simply collect the dirt and look
in the box:
Merridale, Catherine. 2000. _Night of Stone: Death and
Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia_ (USA: Viking), 402pp.
A paragraph on 89:
The most important spur to atheism, however, was
probably the power of science. In that respect, there was a
link, in terms of inspiration, between the radicalism of
unbelief and Marxism, with its faith in progress and its
"science" of dialectical materialism. Kanatchikov, for
instance, remembered his conversion from religion in terms
of his friend Savinov's demonstration of "scientific"
creation. The atheist worker suggested that anyone who
was skeptical of Darwinian theory, who insisted on
adhering to the church and Genesis, should collect some
earth in a box. "You'll see that without fail worms or little
insects will begin to appear," he continued. "And in the
course of four, five, or maybe even ten thousand years,
man himself will emerge." Kanatchikov was so impressed
with this idea that he used it later when he became a
propagandist, calling it "one of the most convincing
arguments in my debates."^50
I hope every IDiot involved in creation versus evolution debates
learns of these observations by *science* and drops their adherence to
IDiocy. That evolution and spontaneous generation have occurred is
accepted as fact by virtually all biologists. "Fact" here means a
proposition, like the proposition that the earth revolves about the
sun, supported by so much evidence that to disbelieve it would require
disbelieving a large, successful edifice of scientific achievement.
The facts of evolution and spontaneous generation are as well
established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the
earth about the sun).
To make the determination
that evolution (or spontaneous generation) hasn't occurred, it is
obviously necessary that we should know all the consequences to which
all possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise.
So, it's rather silly of creationists to claim it can't happen.
I'm glad to hear you agree with me. "Truth" is determined by the
majority, and the majority of biological *scientists* affirm the fact
of evolution and the fact of spontaneous generation.
If we knew these, and found none capable of originating new
species (or life), we would have good grounds for denying their origin
by natural causation. Until we know all these consequences, *any*
hypothesis is better than one which involves us in such miserable
presumption as the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Not only is "intelligent design" a miserable hypothesis, it's not testable,
and not scientific.
Agreed. In stark contrast to the IDiocy hypothesis, evolution is a
wonderful *fact* whose light illuminates all of biology. It truly is
the case that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution. Evolution is highly testable with numerous fulfilled
predictions, and wholly *scientific*.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
